9/10. President Bush gave a
speech
at the FBI Academy at Quantico, Virginia, on September 10, in which he stated
that the Congress should pass legislation giving law enforcement new tools,
including administrative subpoena power, to fight terrorism. On September 9,
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) introduced
HR 3037,
the "Antiterrorism Tools Enhancement Act of 2003", for this purpose.

President Bush stated in his address to Marines, FBI agents and others, that
"The Patriot Act imposed tough new penalties on terrorists and those who support
them. But as the fight against terrorists progressed, we have found areas where
more help is required. Under current federal law, there are unreasonable
obstacles to investigating and prosecuting terrorism, obstacles that don't exist
when law enforcement officials are going after embezzlers or drug traffickers.
For the sake of the American people, Congress should change the law, and give
law enforcement officials the same tools they have to fight terror that they
have to fight other crime."

Bush continued: "Here's some examples. Administrative subpoenas, which enable
law enforcement officials to obtain certain records quickly, are critical to
many investigations. They're used in a wide range of criminal and civil matters,
including health care fraud and child abuse cases. Yet, incredibly enough, in
terrorism cases, where speed is often of the essence, officials lack the
authority to use administrative subpoenas. If we can use these subpoenas to
catch crooked doctors, the Congress should allow law enforcement officials to
use them in catching terrorists."

Rep. Feeney (at right),
who is a member of the
House Judiciary Committee,
the committee with jurisdiction over the bill, stated in a
release that "Congress needs to take every
precaution possible to ensure that the American public is protected from the
horrific acts of terrorism ... This legislation will provide continuity in the
nationwide effort to defend the freedoms that we hold sacred while awarding
greater enforcement ability to those who defend them."

HR 3037 would add a new section to Title 18 (the criminal code) titled
"Administrative subpoenas in terrorism investigations".

This new section provides that "In any investigation concerning a Federal
crime of terrorism (as defined in section 2332b(g)(5)), the Attorney General may
subpoena witnesses, compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses, and
require the production of any records (including books, papers, documents,
electronic data, and other tangible things that constitute or contain evidence)
that he finds relevant or material to the investigation." (Parentheses in
original.)

It further provides that a witness may be directed by the subpoena to appear
at any hearing within "500 miles distant from the place where he was served with
a subpoena".

The bill further provides that the Attorney General may also mandate secrecy.
The bills states that "If the Attorney General certifies that otherwise there
may result a danger to the national security, no person shall disclose to any
other person that a subpoena was received or records were provided pursuant to
this section, other than to (A) those persons to whom such disclosure is
necessary in order to comply with the subpoena, (B) an attorney to obtain legal
advice with respect to testimony or the production of records in response to the
subpoena, or (C) other persons as permitted by the Attorney General." Knowing
violations would constitute crimes.

The bill also contains several significant limitations on judicial review of
these administrative subpoenas, and the secrecy determinations. The bill states,
in part, that "At any time before the return date specified in the summons, the
person or entity summoned may, in the United States district court for the
district in which that person or entity does business or resides, petition for
an order modifying or setting aside the summons."

First, judicial review would only be available "before the return date
specified in the summons". In many situations, this time would run before the
subpoenaed party could obtain counsel and prepare and file a legal challenge.

Second, the bill would limit standing to challenge a subpoena, or a secrecy
determination, to the party served with the subpoena. The import of this is that in
some cases the
subpoena may be directed to an internet service provider (ISP) or communications
carrier, but seek data on customers of the ISP or carrier. The customers whose
data is sought would not have standing, under this language of this bill, to
challenge the subpoena. Nor would industry groups or privacy advocates have
standing to challenge a subpoena.

Third, the bill provides that in any challenge to a subpoena, the court may
consider the government's information "ex parte and in camera". That is, the
party challenging the subpoena may not learn, and therefore, may not be able to
rebut, confront, or cross examine the evidence presented by the government.

Ex parte is legal Latin for something that is brought to the attention of the
court by one party without notice to the other party; most ex parte
communications are prohibited. In camera is legal Latin for something that
happens in the judge's office, as opposed to in open court.

The bill also provides that "Any person, including officers, agents, and
employees, who in good faith produce the records or items requested in a
subpoena shall not be liable in any court of any State or the United States to
any customer or other person for such production or for nondisclosure of that
production to the customer or other person." This removes a disincentive of
ISPs, carriers and other records holders to promptly disclose the information
that they possess about third parties.

HR 3037 also would also amend
Rule 41(b)(3)
of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to read as follows: "(3) a magistrate
judge -- in an investigation of (A) a Federal crime of terrorism (as defined in
18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(g)); or (B) an offense under 18 U.S.C. 1001 or 1505 relating
to information or purported information concerning a Federal crime of terrorism
(as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(5)) -- having authority in any district in
which activities related to the Federal crime of terrorism or offense may have
occurred, may issue a warrant for a person or property within or outside that
district." (Parentheses in original.)

The current Rule 41(b)(3) was added by the PATRIOT Act. It created nationwide
search warrants in terrorism cases. HR 3037 would expand the class of crime and
offense investigations for which these warrants would be available.

Also on September 9, Attorney General John Ashcroft gave a
speech
in New York City in which he discussed the PATRIOT Act. He stated that it
"updates our anti-terrorism laws to meet the
challenges of new technology, and new threats."

Ashcroft continued that "In an age when terrorists have cellular, even
satellite, phones, we must anticipate, out-think, and adapt to the new tactics
and technology of our terrorist foes. Under the Patriot Act, prosecutors may now
use a ``roving wiretap´´ to track a terror suspect's communication even when the suspected
terrorist switches, changes, or abandons phones to avoid detection."

"Since 1986, we have effectively used roving wiretaps to track suspected drug
dealers. Thanks to the Patriot Act, we can now use them to track the terrorist
threat", said Ashcroft.

For example, the CTIA code provides that service providers should voluntarily
"Provide every new consumer a minimum 14-day trial period for new service." In
contrast, the CPUC proposal would mandate that "Subscribers
may cancel any contracted service without fees, charges or penalties (except for
usage fees), within 45 days if the carrier did not provide the contract at the
time of sale. If the carrier provided the contract at the time of sale, the
customer has 30 days within which they can cancel without fees, charges or
penalties." (Parentheses in original.)

Similarly, the CTIA code provides that carriers should "Abide by policies for
the protection of customer privacy". The CPUC proposal would require that
"Carriers may not deny service for failure to provide a social security number"
and that "Carriers
must tell customers and obtain their written consent before using confidential
customer information for any purpose other than the provision and/or billing of
the service, or if they give such information to a third party."

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman
Michael Powell released a
statement [PDF] commending the CTIA. He stated that "The proper functioning
of a highly competitive market --
which the wireless market has proven to be -- depends on consumers having
accurate and meaningful information at all stages of the customer relationship
with the provider." He added that "Ultimately, voluntary efforts, like the code,
are not only good for consumers; they are good for business too by improving the
customer experience and encouraging subscription. I look forward to continuing
to work with the wireless industry and consumers to ensure spectrum-based
services deliver value for the American people."

FCC Commissioner
Kathleen Abernathy also issued a
statement [PDF] supporting the CTIA. She wrote that "I would like to
applaud CTIA and the wireless industry for creating a Consumer Code for Wireless
Service. The competitive nature of the wireless industry has prompted this
action as a means of responding to consumer demands for increased information
regarding rates and terms of service."

Abernathy also stated that "the industry's willingness to adopt a voluntary
code of conduct avoids the need for costly regulatory oversight while delivering
greater value to wireless customers."

Michael Gallagher, acting Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, also issued a
statement: "Customer service is good for competition and great for the 148
million wireless customers in the United States. We will be very interested in
monitoring the wireless industry's efforts to meet this new standard of
performance. I commend CTIA and the companies who have adopted the Consumer Code
for the step forward they take today."

The Consumers Union (CU) and other
groups support the proposal before the CPUC. Janee Briesemeister, Senior Policy
Analyst for CU, stated in a
release that “The cell phone companies have locked in profits with iron clad
contracts for services that don't work and complicated and inaccurate billing
that no one understands ... Customers who try to complain are subjected to
endless automated messages that never lead to anything but irritation. This
proposal offers essential consumer safeguards that are long overdue.”

The CTIA's proposed Consumer Code is as follows:
"1. Provide every new consumer a minimum 14-day trial period for new service.
2. Provide coverage maps, illustrating where service is generally available.
3. In every advertisement that mentions pricing, specifically disclose the rates
and terms of service.
4. For every rate plan or contract, provide consumers specific disclosures
regarding rates and terms of service.
5. On billing statements, carriers will not label cost recovery fees or charges
as taxes, and will separately identify carrier charges from taxes.
6. When initiating or changing service, carriers will clearly state contract
terms to customers and confirm changes in service.
7. Provide customers the right to terminate service for significant changes to
contract terms.
8. Provide ready access to customer service.
9. Promptly respond to consumer inquiries and complaints received from
government agencies.
10. Abide by policies for the protection of customer privacy."

Also, on September 9, the CPUC fined Cingular Wireless $12.14 Million. The CPUC
stated in a
release
the Cingular's "corporate policy and practice
in California did not allow any ``grace period´´ or trial of its wireless service.
Furthermore, Cingular's corporate policy prohibited early termination of
wireless service contracts unless the customer paid an early termination fee of
$150. Some Cingular agents imposed an additional early termination fee of as
much as $400, for a total of as much as $550. Given Cingular's own testimony to
the PUC that testing wireless service by using the phone is the best way for a
customer to ascertain whether the service meets his or her needs, binding that
customer in advance to a one or two year contract constituted an unjust and
unreasonable rule and resulted in inadequate, unjust, and unreasonable service
in violation Public Utilities Code and a previous Commission decision
(D.95-04-028)."

Trade Issues.James
Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, wrote in his
prepared testimony [14 pages in PDF] that "China has implemented
market-oriented reforms over the past two decades and unleashed individual initiative
and entrepreneurship. While substantial development challenges remain, the result
has been the largest reduction of poverty and one of the fastest increases in
income levels ever seen."

He stated that the U.S. has a trade deficit with China, and is working to
eliminate "unfair trade practices" and to get China to "open its markets
further". He further commented that "Maintaining domestic support for open
markets to China will become increasingly difficult without demonstrated support
in China for open markets to U.S. goods and services."

Kelly (at right) also discussed China membership in the
World Trade Organization (WTO). He stated that
"China's full and timely implementation of its WTO
commitments is key to expanding market opportunities for
U.S. firms in China and ultimately creating more jobs for
American workers and farmers. We are working with our
Chinese counterparts to hasten that process, and believe
China's WTO implementation will accelerate China's economic
reform through the creation of a more rules-based and
market-driven economy. While China has made great strides
in reforming its economy and moving toward a market-based
economy, lowering tariffs in the process, we still believe
more needs to be done."

He added that "We have serious concerns with China's WTO compliance in
certain areas -- particularly in agriculture, intellectual
property rights, the services sector, and the cross-cutting
issue of transparency -- and are insisting that the Chinese address these
concerns."

Internet Censorship. T. Kumar, Advocacy Director for Asia & Pacific at
Amnesty International USA, testified
regarding the "vast scope of human rights violations", including
internet related restrictions. He stated in his
prepared testimony [18 pages in PDF] that the
"groups targeted for repression include ... people using the Internet to disseminate information
deemed to be ``politically sensitive.´´"

Kumar elaborated that "In China, individuals can be sentenced to death for
publishing information on the internet that the government considers a ``state
secret´´. Scores of people have been imprisoned in China for using the internet;
of those arrested at-least three have died as a result of torture by police."

"With the introduction of the Internet, news reaches China from a
multiplicity of sources enabling people to form opinions, analyze and share
information and to communicate in ways previously unknown in China. Lively
on-line debate flourished in China. However, the potential of the Internet to
spread new ideas has led the authorities to take measures to control its use",
said Kumar.

Kumar added that "The Chinese government has introduced numerous regulations,
closed Internet cafes, and blocked e-mails, search engines, foreign news and
politically sensitive websites. Recently, it has introduced filtering systems
for web searches and has even created a special ``internet police´´ to enforce
these restrictions. The Ministry of State Security has reportedly installed
tracking devises on Internet service providers to monitor individual email
accounts and all internet cafes are required to register and inform the police
about their customers."

Finally, he stated that "The Chinese government has also forced
Internet companies to take on the responsibility of policing the web. A ``Public
Pledge on Self-Discipline´´ was introduced in August 2002 requiring internet
companies to agree not to allow the posting of ``pernicious´´ information that
may ``jeopardize state security, disrupt social stability, contravene laws and
spread superstition and obscenity´´. Yahoo
also signed to this pledge to police internet users. After a fire in an internet
cafe in Beijing last year, authorities closed thousands of internet cafes and
demanded that those allowed to re-open do so only after installing filtering
software to block web sites considered ``politically sensitive´´ or
``reactionary´´. The software prevents access to 500,000 various websites."

Glen Holly, also known as Digital Images, was in
the business of leasing to film companies for their own use non-linear editing
equipment which it purchased from the manufacturer, Tektronix, and using these systems to
perform professional editing services for customers in the film industry.
Non-linear editing is a digital technology based method of accessing and
rearranging film images and audio tracks.

Glen Holly filed a private antitrust action in
U.S. District Court (CDCal) against
Tektronix and Avid Technologies, alleging that until 1998 they were there were
only two competing manufacturers of non linear editing equipment, that Glen
Holly purchased its equipment from Tektronix, and that in 1998 Avid and
Tektronix entered into an agreement whereby Tektronix ceased production and
marketed Avid's product, in violation of antitrust laws.

The District Court dismissed for lack of antitrust standing. The Appeals
Court reversed the dismissal for lack of antitrust standing (but affirmed the
dismissal of several state law claims). Judge Stephen Trott wrote the opinion for
a unanimous three judge panel.

He wrote that "Given that customers are the intended beneficiaries of
competition, and that customers are presumptively those injured by its unlawful
elimination, for pleading purposes we conclude that Digital Images has satisfied
the requirement that it adequately allege antitrust injury to its business."

He added that "If the antitrust laws are designed to protect customers from
the harm of unlawfully elevated prices, and from ``agreements between
competitors at the same level of the market structure to allocate territories in
order to minimize competition,´´ ... it is no stretch to conclude that these
same laws protect customers from harm directly related to the unlawful removal
of a competitive product from the market. If ... ``competitors may be able to
prove antitrust injury before they actually are driven from the market and
competition is thereby lessened,´´ ... one would think that a customer in
business directly driven from the market by an agreement in restraint of trade
would be able to do the same. It is one thing for a business to have cast its
fate with a product that disappears because of the normal forces of the market;
it is another to have the rug pulled out from under a business by a
conspiratorial agreement to eliminate a competing product from the process upon
which our economic model depends in order to promote social welfare." (Citations
omitted.)

Glen Holly also argued that the case should be reassigned to another
judge on remand. It argued that Judge Stephen Wilson should be replaced
because he stated that he would not hire any more law clerks from Yale. Judge
Trott, who
went to Harvard, rejected this argument.

This case is Glen Holly Entertainment v. Tektronix, Inc. and Avid Technologies, Inc.,
No. 01-56447, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Judge Stephen Wilson presiding, D.C. No. CV-99-02476-SVW.

SCO CEO Criticizes Open Source Development
Model

9/9. Darl McBride, CEO of SCO Group (SCO),
which is also known as Caldera, wrote an
open letter
to the Open Source community
regarding UNIX System V, SCO Group's lawsuit against IBM, intellectual property
rights, the open source software movement, and denial of service
attacks directed at the SCO Group website.

On March 6, 2003, Caldera (SCO) filed a
complaint in
state court in Utah against IBM alleging
misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, unfair competition and
breach of contract in connection with IBM's alleged use of Caldera's proprietary
UNIX code.

IBM filed its
answer [17 page PDF scan] on April 30, 2003. It asserted that "contrary to
Caldera's allegations, by its lawsuit, Caldera seeks to hold up the open source
community (and development of Linux in particular) by improperly seeking to
assert proprietary rights over important, widely used technology and impeding
the use of that technology by the open source community." (Parentheses in
original.)

In his September 9 letter, McBride referenced "an admission by Open Source leader
Bruce Perens that UNIX System V code (owned by SCO)
is, in fact, in Linux, and it shouldn't be there." (Parentheses in original.)
McBride then asserted that "This improper contribution of UNIX code by SGI into
Linux is one small example that reveals fundamental structural flaws in the Linux
development process."

He continued that "this issue goes to the very heart of whether Open Source can
be trusted as a development model for enterprise computing software. The
intellectual property roots of Linux are obviously flawed at a systemic level
under the current model. To date, we claim that more than one million lines of
UNIX System V protected code have been contributed to Linux through this model."

He also commented that "Some enterprise customers have accepted Open Source
because IBM has put its
name behind it. However, IBM and other Linux vendors are reportedly unwilling to
provide intellectual property warranties to their customers. This means that
Linux end users must take a hard look at the intellectual property underpinnings
of Open Source products and at the GPL (GNU General Public License) licensing
model itself."

Deadline for claimants to royalty fees collected for calendar year 2001
under the cable statutory license to submit comments and notices of intention
to participate to the Copyright Office
regarding whether a Phase I or Phase II controversy exists as to the
distribution of those fees. See,
notice in the Federal Register, August 13, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 156, at
Pages 48415 - 48417.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's
(USPTO) final rule amending its rules to separate the provisions for patent
matters and trademark matters with respect to filing correspondence,
requesting copies of documents, payment of fees, and general information takes
effect. The USPTO is "amending its Rules of Practice in Patent Cases to delete
all references to trademark matters, and amending its Rules of Practice in
Trademark Cases to add new rules setting forth provisions for corresponding
with and paying fees to the Office in trademark cases, and for requesting
copies of trademark documents." See,
notice in the Federal Register, August 13, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 156, at
Pages 48286 - 48293.

Deadline to submit comments to the
LOCAL Television Loan Guarantee Board regarding the proposed regulation to
implement the LOCAL Television Loan Guarantee Program, as authorized by the
Launching Our Communities' Access to Local (LOCAL) Television Act of 2000. The
purpose of the Act is to facilitate access to signals of local TV stations in nonserved
areas and underserved areas. The Act establishes a LOCAL Television Loan
Guarantee Board to approve guarantees of up to 80% of loans totaling no more
than $1.25 Billion. The regulation proposes to establish eligibility and
guarantee requirements, the application and approval process, the
administration of guarantees, and the process through which the Board will
consider applications under the priority considerations required in the Act. See,
notice in the Federal Register, August 15, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 158, at Pages
48814 - 48833. See also, Treasury
release.

Tuesday, September 16

8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. The National Institute
of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Information Security and Privacy
Advisory Board will meet. This is the first day of a three day series of
meetings. The agenda includes (1) a session on agencies customer service
management work, (2) a session on the National Information Assurance Program
extension activities, (3) a session on acceptable behavior of "Touching the
Browser", (4) NIST information technology laboratory briefings, (5) an update
by OMB on privacy and security issues, and (6) a briefing by the Department of
Homeland Security Privacy Officer. See,
notice in the Federal Register, August 27, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 166, at
Pages 51559 - 51560. Location: Bethesda Hyatt Regency Hotel, 7400 Wisconsin
Ave., Bethesda, MD.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(DCCir) will hear oral argument in Consumer Electronics Association v.
FCC, No. 02-1312. This is a petition for review of the
Federal
Communications Commission's (FCC) order regarding conversion to digital
television adopted on August 8, 2002, and released on August 9, in MM Docket
No. 00-39. At issue is whether the FCC has authority, under the All Channel
Receiver Act, 47
U.S.C. § 303(s), to require manufacturers to incorporate expensive digital
tuner devices into new TV receivers, even though most TV purchasers not use
these devices. The CEA is represented by the law firm of
Squire Sanders. Judges Ginsburg, Roberts and
Williams will preside. Location: 333 Constitution Ave. NW.

10:00 AM. The Senate
Banking Committee will hold a hearing on the pending nominations of Harvey
Rosen (to be a Member of the Council of
Economic Advisors),
Kristin Forbes (Council of Economic Advisors), Julie Myers (Assistant
Secretary, Department of Commerce), and Peter Lichtenbaum (Assistant
Secretary, Department of Commerce). See,
notice. Location: Room 538, Dirksen Building.

8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. The National Institute
of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Information Security and Privacy
Advisory Board will meet. This is the second day of a three day series of
meetings. The agenda includes (1) a session on agencies customer service
management work, (2) a session on the National Information Assurance Program
extension activities, (3) a session on acceptable behavior of "Touching the
Browser", (4) NIST information technology laboratory briefings, (5) an update
by OMB on privacy and security issues, and (6) a briefing by the Department of
Homeland Security Privacy Officer. See,
notice in the Federal Register, August 27, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 166, at
Pages 51559 - 51560. Location: Bethesda Hyatt Regency Hotel, 7400 Wisconsin
Ave., Bethesda, MD.

11:00 AM - 4:00 PM. The Cato Institute
will host a symposium titled "The Supreme Court: Past and Prologue: A Look
at the October 2002 and October 2003 Terms". The fourth panel, at 3:30 PM,
will address the upcoming term. The speakers on that panel will be James
Swanson (Cato), Michael Carvin, Walter Dellinger (O'Melveny & Myers), and
Thomas Goldstein (Goldstein & Howe). The event will be webcast. See,
notice and
registration page. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The Intellectual Property Law
Section of the D.C. Bar
Association and the ABA will host a luncheon titled "The Clash Between
the Right of Publicity and the First Amendment". The price is $10, or
free if you bring your own lunch. Location: Finnegan Henderson, 1300 I Street,
NW.

1:30 PM. Speaker
Denny Hastert
(R-IL), Rep. Bob Goodlatte
(R-VA) and other Republicans will hold a press conference to announce the
guiding principles for the Republican High Tech Working Group for the 108th
Congress. Location: Room HC-6, Capitol Building.

Thursday, September 18

8:00 AM - 1:45 PM. The U.S. Chamber of
Commerce will host an event titled "Immigration -- Access, Security and
the American Economy". See,
notice. The
price to attend is $95 (members) or $155 (non-members). Location: U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, 1615 H Street, NW.

8:30 AM - 1:00 PM. The National Institute
of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Information Security and Privacy
Advisory Board will meet. This is the third day of a three day series of
meetings. The agenda includes (1) a session on agencies customer service
management work, (2) a session on the National Information Assurance Program
extension activities, (3) a session on acceptable behavior of "Touching the
Browser", (4) NIST information technology laboratory briefings, (5) an update
by OMB on privacy and security issues, and (6) a briefing by the Department of
Homeland Security Privacy Officer. See,
notice in the Federal Register, August 27, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 166, at
Pages 51559 - 51560. Location: Bethesda Hyatt Regency Hotel, 7400 Wisconsin
Ave., Bethesda, MD.

The U.S. Trade Representative's (USTR)
interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) will hold a hearing to assist
it in preparing its annual report to the Congress on the People's Republic of
China's compliance with the commitments that it made in connection with its
accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO).
See,
notice in the Federal Register, July 21, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 139, at Pages
43247 - 43248. Location: Room 1, 1724 F Street, NW.

12:00 NOON. The Cato Institute will
host an panel discussion titled "Debunking Myths about the Media Ownership
Debate". The speakers will be Richard Wiley (former Chairman of the FCC),
James Quello (former Chairman of the FCC), and Harold Furchtgott-Roth (former
Commissioner of the FCC). A luncheon will follow the program. Registration is
required to attend. See,
notice and registration page. For more information, contact: Krystal Brand
at kbrand@cato.org. Location: Room B-369,
Rayburn Building.

Day one of a three day conference titled "Telecommunications
Policy Research Conference". See,
conference agenda and
registration form.
Location: George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, VA.

More News

9/11. The General Accounting Office (GAO)
released its prepared
testimony [PDF] titled "Information Technology: Effective Patch Management
is Critical to Mitigating Software Vulnerabilities". This testimony was prepared
for the September 10 hearing of the House
Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy,
Intergovernmental Relations and the Census titled "Worm
and Virus Defense: How Can We Protect the Nation's Computers from These
Serious Threats?"

Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and
subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription
to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there
are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one
month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free
subscriptions are available for journalists,
federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and
executive branch. The TLJ web site is
free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not
published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription
information page.